|
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 68
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 43,621
|
Re: PM Boris forms a government
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
EU and "trust"?  Simply obeying Germany and France is not the same as party politics. There still should be proper scrutiny and not just by one side. Just a few words can change everything, eg "unless and until". The backstop breaks international law which is meant to allow unilateral withdrawal from an agreement. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
What is your source for that allegation?
|
It doesn't...
The Vienna Convention is very clear that withdrawal should be agreed, not unilateral.
http://theconversation.com/brexit-wh...utation-113591
Quote:
Vienna Convention
So long as the consent of the other party can be obtained, a country can withdraw from any international agreement. This is supported by article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, which states that the termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place (a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting states.
But even if it can’t obtain such consent from the EU to abandon the withdrawal treaty, the UK remains ultimately sovereign. And crucially, supremacy of EU law or of any other international instrument over domestic law does not stem from any international treaties, but from the will of the British parliament.
From this point of view, it really is of no consequence whether the UK has a legal right to withdrawal from the Irish backstop. Article 62 of the Vienna Convention, which allows withdrawal from an international treaty for fundamental change of circumstances, wouldn’t need to be used either.
A country contemplating withdrawing from an international treaty, without meeting the criteria to do so, is not likely to be deterred by the Vienna Convention. Nor would there be an effective enforcement mechanism to compel a country not to withdraw from a treaty, unlike in actions in investment tribunals brought about by private parties which have tangible financial consequences.
Constraints on unilateral withdrawal from the backstop (or the withdrawal treaty in its entirety) are not legal, but political – and those parliamentarians who suggest it would be possible to accept the agreement and then pull out are correct. But there will be consequences, often overlooked by those poring over the legal fine print.
An example from personal finance is useful here. If you stop paying your credit card bill, this may have legal consequences you can live with. Perhaps a bank or a debt collection agency would be willing to settle with you rather than assume the costs of going to court. Even if you’re not worried about the legal consequences, however, damaging your credit score will impact your future business or ability to get another loan.
A similar fate awaits a nation that develops a reputation for ignoring its international obligations. “Computer says no” is a frustrating response to anyone applying for a new credit card. It will be a lot worse when trying to replicate a score of international trade deals after Brexit.
|
And re Article 62 - this from the Conservative Attorney-General.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47568883
Quote:
Article 62 of the treaty says that if there has been "a fundamental change of circumstances" following the conclusion of a treaty "which was not foreseen by the parties", then the countries involved would be allowed to withdraw from the treaty.
Ms Leadsom declined to have a debate on the matter, saying that Attorney General Geoffrey Cox had considered the matter and would comment further if he thought it was necessary.
Mr Cox said on Tuesday that if there is no solution found to stop the backstop arrangements coming into place, "the UK has no unilateral exit right to leave, unless there were a fundamental change of circumstance under Article 62 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties".
o, what would count as a "fundamental change"?
Jonathan Kelly, an international law expert at the firm Cleary Gottlieb, said: "A 'fundamental change' might be an outbreak of war, a revolution or something that completely changes the character of the international political landscape."
The International Court of Justice, which rules on such matters, has been clear that it sets the bar very high.
|
__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Last edited by Hugh; 07-09-2019 at 14:20.
|